Job details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-context that annotations cannot: salary is monthly Toman and may be a minimum or negotiable, and callers should check the `expired` flag. That is real added value, but it is thin and says nothing about missing/private ads or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and follow-up hints, with no filler. The telegraphic, backtick-heavy style (`expired`, company_slug) is slightly clipped for readers unfamiliar with the field names, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the key fields (salary, skills, degree, description, expired, company_slug). It does not explain the shape of those fields or failure modes for invalid ids, but it is adequate for a single-item read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the `job` parameter already documents the 'company-slug/token' format and URL alternative, so the description adds no syntax detail. Its only parameter-adjacent contribution is noting that the resulting company_slug can be passed to jj_company.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Read one Jobinja job ad') and enumerates what it returns (salary, skills, degree, full description), which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented sibling jj_search_jobs. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundary, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Read one' plus the 'company_slug feeds jj_company' note implies the workflow context (use after search, then drill into the company). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as jj_search_jobs for discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.